PDA

View Full Version : WHIRLWIND€¦



MrBlueSky1960
04-01-2006, 09:19 AM
The Beginning.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/AircraftImages01/WWD00.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/AircraftImages01/WWD01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/AircraftImages01/WWD02.jpg

heywooood
04-01-2006, 10:52 AM
Lysander is best...be sure

MB_Avro_UK
04-01-2006, 03:10 PM
Hey BlueSky,

That pic of William 'Tedder' Petter makes him a hero!!

Great for you to promote the Whirlwind (again loool) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Maybe we should all 'chip in' for a 3rd party modeller to build this almost forgotten plane.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
04-01-2006, 04:29 PM
MB_Avro_UK it's too late for one in this sim, what we need to do is get Oleg to notice the Whirly and the people who would want to fly one in his next sim... e.g. BoB... But I'll tell you this, I'm not holding my breath!

I hope I'm wrong...

Irish_Rogues
04-02-2006, 08:35 AM
Great stuff! Would be cool to have this pony in the stable.

p1ngu666
04-02-2006, 08:39 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

triggerhappyfin
04-02-2006, 12:46 PM
I look forward to the whining about this aircraft if Oleg is deciding it to be included.
It didnt perform well in real life, you know.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
04-02-2006, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
I look forward to the whining about this aircraft if Oleg is deciding it to be included.
It didnt perform well in real life, you know.

Just what exactly, in your opinion, did it not perform well at in real life, trigger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Considering it was used up until the mid War years without any major refits or engine mods and apart from being asmatic above 15k I think it prove to be quite a performer.

DIRTY-MAC
04-02-2006, 03:53 PM
nice post!
bump

JSG72
04-02-2006, 04:15 PM
Mmmmmm! Whirlwind?

Ever since I were a Lad (Long.Long.Time ago.)Whirlwind was one of those planes on the sidelines.(Sort of Bitpart player.).
If you can convince me that those Peregrines? made this Aeroplane a success then well/maybes.We should have it.
No Books I have read can convince me.(Not even in 37mm cannon guise).
NOW! a DH Hornet. YUM! YUM!
However. I certainly don't like lots of effort gone to waste.

Fly the Whirlwind! The more the merrier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

MB_Avro_UK
04-02-2006, 04:48 PM
hey Mr.BlueSky,

You are on a Crusade... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro (MB Squad is international and of a crazy disposition).

ARCHIE_CALVERT
04-02-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Mmmmmm! Whirlwind?

Ever since I were a Lad (Long.Long.Time ago.)Whirlwind was one of those planes on the sidelines.(Sort of Bitpart player.).
If you can convince me that those Peregrines? made this Aeroplane a success then well/maybes.We should have it.
No Books I have read can convince me.(Not even in 37mm cannon guise).
NOW! a DH Hornet. YUM! YUM!
However. I certainly don't like lots of effort gone to waste.

Fly the Whirlwind! The more the merrier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The Whirlwind started what the Hornet finished... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif As I said before for an aircraft fitted with the underpowered and under developed Peregrine's (Oh for an extra 200hp... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif) It more than held it's own against aircraft that were being continually developed, so how could it be called a bad performer... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

ARCHIE_CALVERT
04-02-2006, 05:18 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Bump

SnapdLikeAMutha
04-02-2006, 05:18 PM
meh, I want one of these

http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/fww2/welkin-i.jpg

blairgowrie
04-02-2006, 06:04 PM
Yes, I would rather have a Hornet than a Whirlwind. I read Harold Penrose's book and don't think the Whirlwind was that great. Nice looking but it killed a lot of pilots.

Irish_Rogues
04-02-2006, 06:50 PM
Yes, I would rather have a Hornet than a Whirlwind. I read Harold Penrose's book and don't think the Whirlwind was that great. Nice looking but it killed a lot of pilots.

At least the Whirlwind saw combat in WWII, the Hornet wasn't deployed until 1946. If there are any plans for the series to continue into the post-war (maybe into Korea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif) then by all means. But why can't we have both then?

MrBlueSky1960
04-03-2006, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by blairgowrie:
Yes, I would rather have a Hornet than a Whirlwind. I read Harold Penrose's book and don't think the Whirlwind was that great. Nice looking but it killed a lot of pilots.

blairgowrie, how can you say that... They only made 114 of them how many pilots were killed by aircraft failure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif I certainly don't have that information. Remember it was in front line service for nearly four years, there are bound to be accidents. It was not a widow maker.

Generalisation and sweeping comments such as that helped make this aircraft seem like a guaranteed death warrant to all those who flew it, clearly the pilots who flew it every day thought it was a Gentleman€s Aeroplane, in all respects.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

MadBadVlad
04-03-2006, 06:14 AM
Looking at the brief histories of each Whirlwind in the back of the Bingham volume most crashes that were not through damage sustained during enemy action were due to pilot error. There are lots of collisions on the runway and crashes in bad weather, plus one who hit the trees at the edge of the airfield on take-off. I don't think the plane was a widowmaker, but the pilots were pretty dangerous thats for sure.

blairgowrie
04-03-2006, 06:31 AM
So sorry Mr Blue Sky. I was in a foul mood yesterday after receiving some bad news and took it out on the Whirlwind.

In the cold light of dawn, I really would like to see it in the game.

My sincere apology sir. I always enjoy your posts about it.

ImpStarDuece
04-03-2006, 07:57 AM
*Sheds a tear*

Sniff, sigh... it's.. it's just so beautiful.

Xiolablu3
04-03-2006, 08:00 AM
Its like a British P38/Me110 really, and the RAF didnt like the p38, no wonder it never got into full production really.

What is the story about production? I dont know anything about this bird in service.

MrBlueSky1960
04-03-2006, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by blairgowrie:
So sorry Mr Blue Sky. I was in a foul mood yesterday after receiving some bad news and took it out on the Whirlwind.

In the cold light of dawn, I really would like to see it in the game.

My sincere apology sir. I always enjoy your posts about it.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif To be truthful, I always enjoy your comments... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Wether their good or bad!

Sorry you had bad news.

Regards

MrBlueSky

blairgowrie
04-06-2006, 12:19 PM
After my embarrassing post a few days ago, I went to our library and picked up a book "Flying Under Fire - Canadian Fliers Recall the Second World War". I was only the third person to check it out since 2004!

There is a chapter on the Whirlwind and in an attempt to make up up for my goof MrBlueSky, I thought you might enjoy an extract from it.

"The procedure for dive bombing airfields was to fly out down on the deck below radar until we were within fifteen minutes of the target , where we climbed in weak mixture at a rate of 1,000 feet per minute until we reached 15,000 feet. We heard the Spit pilots screaming that we were climbing too fast and that they couldn't keep up with us, particularly in weak mixture so we had to slow down and waft through the air with our cooling flaps open. At 15,000 feet we came in just past the target , usually slightly to the right , did a ninety degree turn to the left behind it , and then as we reached it , peeled off, again in another 90 degree turn. We dove straight down into the targeted airfield - at a screaming great rate of knot , I assure you.

Again, the Spits couldn't keep up. We were heavier and a little faster diving. We would release our bombs at about 6,000 feet , pulling up gently but keeping the nose down. We would be doing about 400 to 440 mph . Hell, we were back home in ten to fifteen minutes which was pretty nice. The Spitfires were left to deal with the hornets" nest that we had stirred up."

Waldo.Pepper
04-06-2006, 09:41 PM
Hey BG Flying Under Fire is great (there are two volumes by the way).

I made this post about it and the Whirlwind Chapter some time ago.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m...691084033#3691084033 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/8501024033/r/3691084033#3691084033)

blairgowrie
04-07-2006, 05:57 AM
Thanks for the link Waldo. Funny how we both thought this extract was interesting and worthy of quoting here.

Now if I could only get Harold Penrose's (Chief test pilot for Westland) book back from Jensenpark.

triggerhappyfin
04-07-2006, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
I look forward to the whining about this aircraft if Oleg is deciding it to be included.
It didnt perform well in real life, you know.

Just what exactly, in your opinion, did it not perform well at in real life, trigger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Considering it was used up until the mid War years without any major refits or engine mods and apart from being asmatic above 15k I think it prove to be quite a performer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, wasnt it underpovered and hard to manouver? Didnt it suffer great deal of losses due to it´s clumsiness? Well..thats what i´ve been told. If you take alook at the tailplane, you can see the modifications from early models with the stabilisator moving up the rudder. Seems to be done with some purpose - perhaps it proofed hard to recover from a dive and killed some pilots before the modification? So the statement of not beeing modded for some reason dont seem right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ARCHIE_CALVERT
04-07-2006, 02:00 PM
Well, wasn€t it underpovered and hard to maneuver? Didn€t it suffer great deal of losses due to its clumsiness? Well..thats what I€ve been told. If you take alook at the tailplane, you can see the modifications from early models with the stabilisator moving up the rudder. Seems to be done with some purpose - perhaps it proofed hard to recover from a dive and killed some pilots before the modification? So the statement of not being modded for some reason don€t seem right.

I wouldn€t go so far as to say €˜under powered€ (Although another 200hp would have been nice...) More, the Peregrine was under developed and as I said before, breathing was very hard for the baby Merlin above 15-16k (Read Waldo's Post above and Blairgowrie's) It was faster than the early Spitfire down low.

The original P9 was to have a twin fin and rudder layout. But wind tunnel testing indicated longitudinal control problems with the flap fully lowered. As a result a more conventional single fin and rudder with a high-set tailplane was used and subsequently on all production aircraft.

Harold Penrose (Westlands Chief Test Pilot) Discovered the Aircraft had directional instability, but this was solved by increasing the rudder area above the tailplane and giving the rudder a concave surface on both sides of the lower section and on the starboard side of the upper part. Tail buffeting during stall and high-speed dives was cured by the addition of an acorn-shaped fairing at the junction of the fin and tailplane.

All of these problems were sorted on the two prototypes, a few of the early production aircraft did have a smaller acorn fairing fitted but it was found to be beneficial to have a slightly larger one fitted shortly afterwards.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-07-2006, 03:56 PM
Er....bump! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ARCHIE_CALVERT
04-07-2006, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Er....bump! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sheese... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Greenie and I thought you had fallen off the planet... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Glad to see we were wrong... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Every thing all right L_F... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

triggerhappyfin
04-07-2006, 04:31 PM
Some information here (http://www.constable.ca/whirlwind.htm)
Seems like it only saw very limited action.
It´s not my intention to marginalise this aircraft but in my opinion there are several other planes that´s needed to complete the RAF and FAA inventory. As Whirlie never was properly sorted out it would not be any uberplane but surely would dissappoint us all if modeled and given the FM´s it should have.

ImpStarDuece
04-07-2006, 08:07 PM
The vast majority of the pilot accounts I've read about the Whirlwind speak in fairly glowing terms of both its performance and handling. 137 squadron pilots were quite dissapointed when they had to trade their Whirlwinds for Hurricane IVs.


Whirlwinds strengths were:

Good range for a single seater
Very fast at low altitude
Strong, concentrated firepower
Excellent rate of roll
Very good turn for a twin engine
Fast dive
Excellent all around vision

Whirlwinds weaknesses were:

Somewhat anemic and unreliable engines
Lack of cross feed fuel tanks
Poor performance above 15,000 feet
Small amunition capacity
Less range than other twin engine types
More expensive to manufacture than other single seater fighters
Instability in stalls
The proposed Mk II Whirlwind, with 1,010 hp Peregrines, cross-feed fuel tanks and new props would of rectified some of the range and reliability issues as well as pushing speed up towards 400mph at 15,000 feet. It folded because Rolls-Royce shut up shop on the Peregrine before it had been developed in properly in terms of power or reliability.

The problem was that
1. Rolls-Royce was discontinuing the Peregrine to concentrate on Merlin development. Merlins were in short supply at the time and coudn't be spared to fit to Whirlwinds.
2. Most combats at the time were taking place above 15,000 feet where the Whirlwind wasn't as manouverable or fast as the Spitfire Mk V
3. The RAF requirement for a cannon fighter had already been met by the Beaufighter, Mosquito and Typhoon. The Beau never had the performance of the Whirlwind but had a range, load and firpower advatnage. The Typhoon took 18 months to get its teething problems sorted out, but was still faster than the Whirly at low alt (although less manouverable) and the Mosquito was destined to take the Merlin production that the Whirlwind desperately needed.
4. The lack of cross feed fuel tanks severly hampered the practical range of the neat little twin.

In hindsight, it probably would of been better for the RAF to introduce a Whirlwind II powered with the Merlin XX engines that the Hurricane recieved. However, Westland couldn't hope to expand production to meet the demand of the Whirlwind as a primary fighter types and the RAF desperately needed more fighters.

panzerd18
04-07-2006, 09:08 PM
I heard it needed a long runway to take off from. A lot longer than an average single engine fighter.

triggerhappyfin
04-08-2006, 09:18 AM
Tghe Whirlie surely would evolved in something good if the odds weren´t against it.

There are contadictory sources claiming the range beeeing good and some sources say 240 km!

About manouverability there are sources saying it was´nt better than Bf 110 in that regard.

The high landing speed was a problem when battle weary pilots returned and overshot the strip going up in flames together with the aircraft.

Of the original order of 400 ac only 114 were built and flown operationally in a timespan of mere 2,5 years. Something had to have been wrong with it!